A second quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable if the grounds were available during the first petition, reinforcing the prohibition against repeated submissions based on pre-existing facts.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The instant appeal has been filed against final judgment and order dated 13th September, 2022¹ [Hereinafter, referred to as “impugned order”] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras² [Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”] in quashing petition³ [Criminal Original Petition No. 16241 of 2022] filed by the respondents herein.⁴ [Hereinafter, referred to as “accused-respondents”] Vide the impugned order, the High Court allowed the quashing petition and quashed the criminal complaint⁵ [Criminal Complaint No. 1828 of 2019] filed by the appellant herein⁶ [Hereinafter, referred to as “complainant” or “appellant-complainant] against the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 193 , 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 read with 34 and 120 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860⁷ [For short “IPC”] before the learned IX Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

Factual Background:

4. Facts in nutshell, relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein-below:

4.1. The complainant has been engaged in travels and finance business for several years. During 2005-2008, the complainant entered into some loan transactions with the accused-respondents who were engaged in the business of money lending. To secure the said loan transactions, the complainant gave the original deeds of several of his properties situated at Thanjavur and Chennai to the accused-respondents. An agreement of sale came to be executed between C. Natrajan (respondent No. 2) and the complainant in respect of a flat⁸ [Flat No. 10 having plinth area of 935 sq. ft. First Floor, 2nd Main Road, Rams Flat, Adyar, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai] and a portion of plot⁹ [3/87 undivided share of land measuring larger extent of 4 Grounds and 895 sq. ft. under Survey No. 42 Part, Block No. 36, Kottur Village, Plot No. 126 Part, situated at Old Door No. 83, 2nd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai] situated at Adyar, Chennai on 25th April, 2008.

4.2. Thereafter, on 23rd May, 2008, a tripartite agreement came to be executed between the complainant, one R.R. Vasudevan and D.S. Velmurugan (respondent no. 1). Under the said agreement, R.R. Vasudevan paid Rs. 79,00,000/- to respondent No. 1, which was actually payable to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant cleared of the remaining outstanding amount pertaining to the loan transactions totaling Rs. 1,65,98,000/- and having made such payment, he requested the accused-respondents to return the original deeds given as security against the loan amount. Since the accused-respondents failed to respond to the aforesaid request, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated 30th August, 2011 to them, seeking return of the original documents.

4.3. It is alleged that after the receipt of the aforesaid notice, respondent No. 1 executed a sham sale deed in respect of the complainant’s property situated at Thanjavur, which was given as security against the loan amount. On coming to know of the said fraudulent transaction, the complainant filed a complaint on 22nd November, 2011 with the Crime Branch, Chennai after procuring orders of the High Court. The said complaint came to be registered as Crime No. 193 of 2012. The police filed closure report in the said case and the same was accepted by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai vide order dated 23rd September, 2013. The revision petition¹⁰ [Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 1305 of 2013] filed by the complainant was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 24th October, 2013